Why the Chief Justice could still refuse to testify

Only last week, I wrote about an unexpected twist in the impeachment proceedings against Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona. This was the manifestation of Atty. Jose Roy III, one among the battery of lawyers for the defense, saying that their side was asking the court for the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum and duces tecum for certain personalities to appear at the impeachment trial. I felt absolute silence engulfing the whole atmosphere the moment Atty. Roy was able to spell out what they wanted. It was such a disbelief that gripped the impeachment court, the gallery and the television audience that it stunned almost everybody.

The defense lawyer proceeded to enumerate high profile names like Congressman Walden Bello, former Party List Representative Riza Hontiveros-Barraquel and the Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales. What was not asked by many, if not most, was “Why?” What had the defense up in their sleeves that the prosecution missed?

Of course, Atty. Roy carefully crafted his manifestation. He started with “if”. I do not have a transcript of his verbal declaration but, if I cull from my memory, I do recall that he said something like this: “If it is the intention of the impeachment court to hear about the so-called $10M account, the respondent would testify”. Such a revelation was totally surprising. Nobody saw it forth coming but almost everybody feasted on it. There was even a clarification made by the Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile trying to pin Atty. Roy to a commitment, a commitment for the Chief Justice to appear before the tribunal and take the witness stand. And it seemed that the defense counsel, somehow, obliged. Then, for everyone in the prosecution, it was a most welcome development.

But, I thought that buried deep in the manifestation of Atty. Roy was something else. His revelation that their client was willing to testify on that issue of the dollar account, was not a clear cut statement. I noticed that it was subject to a condition. And what was that condition? If those who were subpoenaed could establish that indeed the dollar account existed! Then and only then would the respondent sally forth to the court.

That was why I wrote about plausible reasons why the chief justice would really not agree to become a witness. I referred the move of the defense as a “queen’s gambit”. The chess players among us would tell us that the queen’s gambit is a move in a chess game where the queen, the most important piece on a chess match, is made as a bait. But it, usually, is dangerous to take that bait.

Anyway, most observers of the trial think that the revelation of Ombudsman Morales was most damaging. If that should be the case, then it went beyond the scope of the apparent preparation of the defense. To many, the queen’s gambit offered by the defense was a wrong move. It back fired. It contained salvos which the defense was unable to calculate in advance. The facts and figures mentioned by Ombudsman Morales formed a kind of avalanche against the respondent such that the only plausible way out would be to bring in the Chief Justice himself and testify.

Yes, the clamor for the respondent to appear personally before the impeachment court and testify is seemingly getting irreversible. The present demand is for him to prove that, indeed, he does not maintain any dollar account in any bank which, despite the apparent reluctance of some to admit, is an impossible job.

But, I do not want to sound like a kill joy. I still hold on to the portion of the previous manifestation of Atty. Roy as hiding something. To me, it is possible that Chief Justice Corona will not testify. Why? What could justify his non-appearance?

Let us consider that Ombudsman Morales anchored her revelation of the existence of the alleged dollar accounts of the respondent on the report of the investigators from AmLac (that agency tasked with the implementation of the Anti-Money Laundering Act. In a manner of speaking, her testimony was based on a report from someone else. The Ombudsman did not gather those pieces of information herself. Her knowledge is hearsay!

If the defense eventually refuses to bring the Chief Justice to the witness stand, that could be their justification. The prosecution has not established the existence of the forex account and if it has failed to proffer evidence in that regard, then there is nothing to refute and there is no need for Chief Justice Corona to testify. Whew!